Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal rejecting the candidateship of the appellant, a member of the Indian National Congress (INC), fielded as ‘substitute candidate’ after the withdrawal of the initially ‘approved candidate’ for the Lok Sabha Elections 2024, a division bench comprising of S. A. Dharmadhikari* and Gajendra Singh, JJ., upheld the rejection of the appellant’s nomination form and the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court held that since the nomination of ‘substitute candidate’ for Indian National Congress had already been rejected and such rejection of nomination was never challenged by the appellant, there exist no question of allowing such a candidate to participate in the elections at Indore as an ‘approved candidate’ of the party.
The appellant, a member of INC, sought to contest the general election for the House of People from the Indore parliamentary constituency. However, the INC declared another candidate (respondent 4) as the ‘approved candidate’ and the appellant as the ‘substitute candidate’. The appellant’s nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer because he was considered only a ‘substitute candidate’. Subsequently, respondent 4 withdrew his nomination, prompting the appellant to seek recognition as the ‘approved candidate’, which was denied. The appellant then filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including acceptance of his candidature and allotment of the INC’s election symbol. The single judge bench, vide order dated 30-04-2024, dismissed the appellant’s petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the same.
The appellant argued that the rejection of his nomination was incorrect, as he should have been given a day to rectify any deficiencies. Furthermore, it was contended that he should have been considered the ‘approved candidate’ after respondent 4 withdrew. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, and that the appellant did not challenge the rejection of his nomination in a timely manner. The respondent also contended that the appellant’s new prayer in the appeal was improper.
The Court noted that the rejection of the appellant’s nomination and the validity of Form-B submitted by the approved candidate were matters to be decided in an election petition, not through a writ petition. Additionally, since the appellant did not challenge the rejection of his nomination and raised new prayers in the appeal, the Court found no grounds for interference. The Court relied on legal principles established in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216 and Manda Jagannath v. K. Ratnam, (2004) 7 SCC 492, i.e., “the jurisdiction of Article 226 is not even barred in election matter though it has to be sparingly exercised.” The Supreme Court held that provisions of the Constitution and the Act read together do not totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the court so as to have the wrong done remedied by invoking the judicial forum.
The Court held that the rejection of the appellant’s nomination and the dismissal of the writ petition were justified based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, stating that the High Court should refrain from interfering in election matters during the electoral process. The Court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
[Moti Singh v. Election Commission of India, Writ Appeal No. 1039 of 2024, order dated 03-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal with Shri Jayesh Gurnani, Counsel for the Appellant
Ms. Mini Ravindran, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3
